Posted on 12/23/2004 7:40:45 AM PST by Ernie.cal
I have read many messages which object to same-sex marriage but I am still waiting to learn what specific adverse consequences opponents of gay marriage anticipate to result from its legalization.
In other words, suppose same-sex marriage becomes law during 2005. By 2010 or 2015 what specific indisputable adverse consequences to society do opponents predict to occur?
With respect to those critics of same-sex marriage who refer to "God's law" and "procreation" --- do they believe that heterosexual couples who cannot have children, or who do not wish to have children, should also NOT be allowed to marry?
The essence of a free society is choice---including the option of choosing private behavior that does not cause harm to another person. The alternative is coercion, i.e. using the coercive (and punitive) power of government through laws, bureaucrats, and police to dictate what choices are permissible.
Do opponents of same-sex marriage propose that our society should begin identifying areas where choices involving human intimacy should be regulated by government entities and thus dilute our commitment to the values inherent in a free society?
Libertarians are out in force with ernie.cal: Legalize all forms of prostitution, no age of consent laws, polygamy, bestiality, and oh yeah, legal drugs to kill the pain for those seeking relief from the libertarian utopian visions. Get the government off our backs--so to speak! Say no to government coersion and yes to homosexual coersion, especially of children, puppies, and gerbils.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't recall James Madison and all writing one line, much less volumes, on the subject of homo-erotica in the Federalist Papers. But the Constitution is a living document, meant to change with society and the times (I said with thick sarcasm and irony for the apparent libertarian dilemma toward the living document argument).
So a man and woman that fight all time and hate each other should be forced to live together?
YOU: One principal is the first amendment. For instance, if homosexuals marriage was protected BY LAW would churches be allowed to deny employment, benefits, etc. to homosexuals? One instance of this is laws proposed to FORCE Catholic pro-life hospitals and Catholic pro-life medical professionals to perform abortions if they receive any government money, even in the form of medicare payments.
Judith: What is the CURRENT status of law with respect to employment of homosexuals by churches?
If I understand your position correctly, you are suggesting that employers (including churches) should have the right to deny employment based upon what they perceive to be the sexual orientation of a prospective employee. Consequently, for example, if I am Catholic and gay, and I apply for a job at a church or church-operated facility, I should be rejected solely based upon being gay and have no recourse because churches should have the right under the First Amendment to associate with whomever they want--or exclude whomever they want.
And THAT behavior is what YOU want society to affirm as proper, decent, pro-family, behavior.
OK---once we establish THAT as the underlying principle of our law regarding employment, then OTHER non-church employers should be allowed to follow the same rules---correct? If so, what happens when large numbers of gays or bi-sexuals can no longer find gainful employment---because as several persons in this thread have said, the "majority" of Americans don't approve of homosexuals?
Furthermore, once we affirm the principle you have suggested, will gays and bi-sexuals still be required to pay taxes? Why should they pay full tax if they don't have access to the same opportunities as you do? Should gays be allowed to vote? If so, why? Allowed to teach children? Allowed to seek employment in any profession where they might be portrayed as a role model?
Why permit diseased, immoral, perverted, promiscuous, disgusting persons to have ANY rights? What example does that set for our children?
Whatever the men were up to, the millions of women they infected were all heterosexual, and the children and old people who have gotten ill through birth transmission or while caring for their family members in unhygienic conditions certainly have no sexual life to relate to their illness.
Southern Africa is among the most devout Christian regions in the world. When the rates of HIV infection are higher than they are even among communities of "out" homosexuals in America, who are presumably having a lot more homosexual sex than African men, you have to wonder if you really can blame it all on one factor that you have to assume is widely hidden through double lives.
A lot of African migrant workers live in all-male camps where homosexuality is practiced. A lot of others have sex with female prostitutes and spread it among themselves. Nothing is cut and dried.
I don't know how to use big type, so I'll try all caps.
DO PUBLIC OFFICIALS INCLUDE ALL CLERGY, INCLUDING CATHOLIC PRIESTS, OR DOES IT REFER TO GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS? IF IT REFERS TO CLERGY, THEN WHAT WAS THE EPISCOPAL PRIEST TALKING ABOUT?
In any case, America is both much more religious than Canada and has the 1st Amendment. I repeat my question: can you conceive of the government forcing a Catholic priest to marry a Catholic and a Jew within a Catholic church? Why or why not? Note that discrimination on the basis of religion is illegal in public accommodations right now by federal law.
**************
A man and woman who thought enough of each other to marry should seek counseling if they find that they are experiencing problems.
bttt
Unless one can separate the person from the activity one can set NO examples as examples are based upon universal truth and or ideals NOT people which all have flaws or all may be prone to 'bad' behavior.
Your arguments on this thread are all flawed as they are all morally relative...
Humanity and decency, neither of which you understand
If inheritance taxes weren't so high (to redistribute the wealth), would they have anything to bitch about?
Do they believe that God thinks that two men living together are "living in sin" simply because they are not married?
Another straw man. The hospitals I worked at, as a nurse, were forbidden to question as to sexuality, HIV positive, etc. Which means that you could eat food prepared by an HIV positive homosexual who has a compulsion to give the "gift" or given an IV by such a person, or even be operated on by such a person. Hope you don't mind. That is current law, btw.
Consequently, for example, if I am Catholic and gay, and I apply for a job at a church or church-operated facility, I should be rejected solely based upon being gay and have no recourse because churches should have the right under the First Amendment to associate with whomever they want--or exclude whomever they want.
Exactly. As for the rest of your post, you're getting hysterical.
I have no clue to what they think...But that is a thought.
You lost me with your reply. Numerous people in this thread have described gays in terms calculated to evoke fear, disgust, and revulsion. Further, they have suggested that gays should not be employable by any decent person or institution. How do we separate "the person from the activity" when the debate descends to such a level?
Sissy. You started the whole thing. Why?
A lot of African migrant workers live in all-male camps where homosexuality is practiced. A lot of others have sex with female prostitutes and spread it among themselves. Nothing is cut and dried.
"I know you are, but what am I."
A steadfast refusal to answer the questions...
Judith, I am not presenting a "straw man" argument. The logical progression of the arguments being made in this thread is inescapable and, once again, you have confirmed that my understanding is correct. Apparently, the situation you described at hospitals is abhorent to you and you would prefer that gays not be permitted to work in any medical environment. OK, we have now eliminated churches and medical employment. I presume you will want to add schools. What other types of employment should be forbidden to gays and bi-sexuals?
Incidentally, as this discussion continues, I ask everyone to go back to the message which claimed gays have been seeking "special rights". Apparently, in YOUR scheme of things, employment is a "special right" too! What's next?
The same way I try to -just do it and stick firmly to it. Others may eventually learn from resolve displayed in discussions. Regardless, two wrongs do not make a right nor does any wrong allow a wrong to become right...
The Homosexual Agenda is just the battering ram to society's laws and mores to advance the Sex Positive Agenda.
These hedonists take no moral opposition to any sex acts (including those you listed above). Rape is sort of bad to them because it may not include consent (although they don't believe that anyone is too young to consent), but rape fantasies are perfectly fine.
You can find some government links to the Sex Positive Agenda on this website which got hounded out of operation but still maintains a page of links to other sites:
Abstinence is considered evil in the Sex Positives' upside down world because it is the "denial" of sexual desires. Much as they encourage people to experiment with homosexuality.
Why stop there? If you have desires for a married person, go ahead and commit adultery. Want to fool around with relatives? Fine, although you may need to rent some sex rooms when you hold a wedding or family reunion. Kids? They've got to learn sometime. The family dog? He humps your leg and furniture, right? < /sarcasm >
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.